LNG Group Muhannad Rabeh Travis Spain Keith Orendorff
Outline Overall description Market Piping Shipping Pretreatment Liquefaction Regas. Planning Risk Analysis Questions
Overall Description Purpose 53 trillion cubic feet 20 % consumption 1 BCFD production
Market Analysis
Market Analysis
Market Analysis Natural Gas (MCFD) Production: 867 Consumption: 6,700 Demand: 5,833
Market Analysis
Pipeline Optimization Parameters used in simulation Diameters considered: 36, 44, 48, 52 in I.D. Length: 996 miles Elevation change: 1000 m Flow rate: 25 MMcf/h Outlet pressure: 800-900 psi Compressors: Not to exceed 1000 psi output
Optimization cnt. Costs: Compressors: $2500/hp Pipe: Extrapolated from PT&W 36 : $75/ft 44 : $91/ft 48 : $100/ft 52 : $108/ft
Optimization cnt.
Optimization cnt.
Shipping 4000 miles
Shipping Capacity: 138,000 m 3 Speed: 37 Km/hr Distance: 4000 miles Travel time: 15 days Production: 27,520 CMD (137,600 m 3 /5days) 2 Days to load and unload 2 ships are needed
Shipping Panama Canal is not taken because,
Pretreatment Obtain Gas specification (Required: 1,036 Btu/ft 3 ) (Available: 1,100 Btu/ft 3 ) Protect Equipment Environmental Reasons
Pretreatment CO 2 Dehydration
Pretreatment CO 2 Removal (50-100 ppm) Sulfinol vs. MDEA Water Removal (<0.1 ppm) 1- TEG 2- Molecular Sieves (2/train) 3- Pre-cooling Hg Filter (<0.01 Microgram/m 3 ) (Alumina) Sulfide to form HgS Duster Safety Inexpensive Solid particles
Mercury Catastrophe Skikda, Algeria
Liquefaction A (Entrance from Pretreatment @ 100F) A B (Air/Water HX) B C (Propane Chillers) C D (Scrub column/ propane stage) D E (Heavy cooling to -110 F) (Heavy HC and NGLs) C E D B Atm. Pressure 14.7psia F A
Liquefaction T (F) 150 100 50 0-50 -100-150 -200-250 -300 A T vs. Q D Work E 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Heat Flow Q (MMBTU/hr) F T vs. Q (heat flow) for an ideal design of 4.5 mtpa
Liquefaction T high W = dq (1 T T low high ) T low W = dq T ( high T high T low ) dq W = da T high
Liquefaction Pure Refrigerant Mixed Refrigerant
APCI 88% of world s LNG production SWHE (Spiral Wound Heat Exchangers) -Flexible -Easy to control -made for heavy efficient cooling Frame 7 compressors (85MW) X 2 4.5 mtpa and the X-technology (5 mtpa)
SWHE
SWHE
GE Frame 7 Gas Turbine
APCI Mixed Refrigerant (comp.)(t=-35 o C) ~ 1% N2 ~ 27-30% Methane ~ 50% Ethane ~ 18-20% Propane ~ 1-2% Butane Pretreated Natural Gas Feed Mixed Refrigerant after Cooling the Natural Gas stream T~10 o C
APCI Heat Exchanging Column
Linde Also called MFC process 4 mtpa Only in Ekofish (Norway) 2 SWHE (linde) 2 PFHE (Precooling (mainly propane))
Linde Pre-cooling Section (PFHE) Liquefaction Section (SWHE) Sub cooling Section (SWHE)
Linde Pre-Cooling Liquefying Sub-cooling
Linde Propane Ethane Methane Nitrogen Pre-cooling ~80% ~15% ~4% ~1% Liquefaction ~3% ~22% ~70% ~5% Sub-cooling ~4% ~10% ~85% ~1%
DMR Dual Mixed Refrigerant Two stages (Light _ Heavy) Two different mixed refrigerants 4.5 mtpa 2 SWHE 2 frame 7 compressors More reliable than the APCI Shell ( Sakhalin Island, Russia)
DMR
Conoco Phillips Cascade 5% of world s LNG production Oldest design (since 1969) Uses regular compressors (i.e., frame 5) Uses simple Heat exchangers (PFHE) Single Train (3-3.5 mtpa) 2 in 1 train (4.5 mtpa)
Conoco Phillips Cascade
PFHE
Conoco Phillips Cascade 3 flash tanks 2 flash tanks 3 flash tanks Natural Gas Fuel Gas Methane Cycle Ethylene Cycle Propane Cycle Flash Tank LNG
Conoco Phillips Cascade Theoretical Heat Exchanger Fuel Gas Natural Gas T=21 o C T * =-35 o C T * = -95 o C T * = -155 o C T=-162 o C LNG
Conoco Phillips Cascade
Conoco Phillips Cascade T vs. Q T (F) 150 100 50 0-50 -100-150 -200-250 -300 Propane 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Ethylene Q (MMBTU/hr) Methane
Conoco Phillips Optimized Cascade 2 in 1
Propane Start 90 o F End -35 0 F
Conoco Phillips Optimized Cascade 4,900 lb/hr
Conoco Phillips Optimized Cascade
Ethylene Start Point -40F End Point -110
Conoco Phillips Optimized Cascade 35,000 hp
Methane
Conoco Phillips Optimized Cascade 63,000 hp
Selection Handles less in flow More reliable Pure refrigerant vs. Mixed Refrigerant Easier to scale up
Selection Quicker Start up and Shut down time Less instrumentation and control loops Since 1969 (Risk and testing)
Regasification Plant
Submerged Combustion Vaporization
Open Rack Vaporization
Ambient Air Vaporization
Vaporization Choice
Cold Energy Recovery -260 F 200 psia 75 F 100 psia -260 F 30 psia 40 F 200 psia 40 F 20 psia 80 F 15 psia -130 F 15 psia
Cold Energy Recovery
Cold Energy Recovery
Intermediate Liquids Used Methanol Propanol Isopropanol Propylene Glycol Boiling Point (14.7 psia) (F) 148.46 179.6 179.6 370 Melting Point (14.7 psia) (F) -144.4-126.4-126.4-74 Hottest Temperature Used (F) 75 75 75 75 Coldest Temperature Used (F) -120-90 -90-50 Flow Rate of Air (lbmol / hr) 396801.59 396402.59 396355.41 396712.59 Flow Rate of Liquid (lbmol / hr) 45067.99 39294.27 38001.79 39797.14 Pump Work Used (hp) 182.29 293.62 290.31 209.39 Expander Work Produced (hp) 218.93 313.56 312.80 238.98 Net Work (hp) 36.64 19.94 22.49 29.59
Other Options For Utilizing Cold Energy Integrate Receiving Plant with Chemicals Plant Integrate Receiving Plant with Cryogenic Plant
TCI TCI Liquefaction facility: $1.54 Billion Shipping: $155 Million/ship Piping: $1.26 Billion Additional 75% added for installation Total: $3.11 Billion
Operating Costs Pipeline: 1.9 BBTU/yr ~1% Fuel usage Liquefaction: Varies according to price of NG
Design Planning 6 plans considered 1 Train in yr 1 1 Train every 5 years (1,5,10) 1 train in yrs 1, 7, 9 & 12 1 train in yrs 1,3,6,10,13 1 train in yr 1, 2 trains in yr 5 and 1 train in yr 10 2 trains in yrs 1, 5 & 10 5 scenarios Low selling price/low buying price Low selling price/high buying price Medium buying & selling prices High selling price/low buying price High selling price/high buying price
Planning cnt. Single train: Design 5: Design 2: Design 4:
Risk Analysis Design 4: Design 5:
Conclusions/Recommendations Not profitable High TCI High operating costs Fuel usage in pipeline Determine better location Inside Peru
Questions?